Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:21 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:17 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 5:58 pm
Stop using what? The basic laws of thought?

I have quite a collection of grammar books, Even did a typed version of Boole, however, I have neve seen Laws of Though, which were written like an idiot. You must tell me the author. But, there is so much laughter I can do in one day. Hell, I did Boole complete back in Windows 95.

The authors? Plato and Aristotle for example. I thought you liked them.

Are you claiming that because we have synonyms for each, that I said something different.

Noun and Verb, quantity and quality, the one and the many. 0 and 1 --------------- a segment. Having problems seeing the same idea in all the many synonyms or something? parsing and the parsed? stop go stop, a simple light switch?

You cannot even construct the simple sentence without admitting a binary construct. So yes, I will wait for all you morons to quit contradicting yourself. I do not think you that the intelligence to do so, so that is a safe bet for me.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:21 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:17 pm

I have quite a collection of grammar books, Even did a typed version of Boole, however, I have neve seen Laws of Though, which were written like an idiot. You must tell me the author. But, there is so much laughter I can do in one day. Hell, I did Boole complete back in Windows 95.

The authors? Plato and Aristotle for example. I thought you liked them.

Are you claiming that because we have synonyms for each, that I said something different.

Noun and Verb, quantity and quality, the one and the many. 0 and 1 --------------- a segment. Having problems seeing the same idea in all the many synonyms or something? parsing and the parsed?

Noun and verb, quantity and quality, one and many, 0 and 1 are four different concept pairs that aren't synonomous. Imagine how badly degraded someone's mind has to be to not grasp this.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:29 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:21 pm
The authors? Plato and Aristotle for example. I thought you liked them.

Are you claiming that because we have synonyms for each, that I said something different.

Noun and Verb, quantity and quality, the one and the many. 0 and 1 --------------- a segment. Having problems seeing the same idea in all the many synonyms or something? parsing and the parsed?

Noun and verb, quantity and quality, one and many, 0 and 1 are four different concept pairs that aren't synonomous. Imagine how badly degraded someone's mind has to be to not grasp this.

You argue that with your computer which processes all information by parsing simple electricity.

Lucky no one waited for you people's intelligence to build one.

And since it is a fact, it is not a theory.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:29 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:25 pm
Are you claiming that because we have synonyms for each, that I said something different.

Noun and Verb, quantity and quality, the one and the many. 0 and 1 --------------- a segment. Having problems seeing the same idea in all the many synonyms or something? parsing and the parsed?

Noun and verb, quantity and quality, one and many, 0 and 1 are four different concept pairs that aren't synonomous. Imagine how badly degraded someone's mind has to be to not grasp this.

You argue that with your computer who processes all information by parsing simple electricity.

We already went through that one. You don't know what computers are, don't understand that a computer can be built ternary or quaternary or whatever not just binary, don't understand that information is just an abstraction about a part of the hardware itself. The usual beginner mistakes.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:34 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:29 pm
Noun and verb, quantity and quality, one and many, 0 and 1 are four different concept pairs that aren't synonomous. Imagine how badly degraded someone's mind has to be to not grasp this.

You argue that with your computer who processes all information by parsing simple electricity.

We already went through that one. You don't know what computers are, don't understand that a computer can be built ternary or quaternary or whatever not just binary, don't understand that information is just an abstraction about a part of the hardware itself. The usual beginner mistakes.

Okay, you tell Microsoft that it never asked me a long time ago to beta test for them. I will send back all the original CD's they sent me.

Just because you can program in any bit depth does not mean it is not binary based.
I have the actual history in my attic, you have nothing between even your ears.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:34 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:31 pm
You argue that with your computer who processes all information by parsing simple electricity.

We already went through that one. You don't know what computers are, don't understand that a computer can be built ternary or quaternary or whatever not just binary, don't understand that information is just an abstraction about a part of the hardware itself. The usual beginner mistakes.

Okay, you tell Microsoft that it never asked me a long time ago to beta test for them. I will send back all the original CD's they sent me.

Ok, then you also don't know that being able to beta test a software doesn't require that you know how the hardware can be manufactured on the logic gates level.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:38 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:34 pm
We already went through that one. You don't know what computers are, don't understand that a computer can be built ternary or quaternary or whatever not just binary, don't understand that information is just an abstraction about a part of the hardware itself. The usual beginner mistakes.

Okay, you tell Microsoft that it never asked me a long time ago to beta test for them. I will send back all the original CD's they sent me.

Ok, then you also don't know that being able to beta test a software doesn't require that you know how the hardware can be manufactured on the logic gates level.

You sound as stupid as my daughter when I told her every station on my machine uses computers, and she said, all I do is push buttons.
You are just plain stupid.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:39 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:38 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:35 pm

Okay, you tell Microsoft that it never asked me a long time ago to beta test for them. I will send back all the original CD's they sent me.

Ok, then you also don't know that being able to beta test a software doesn't require that you know how the hardware can be manufactured on the logic gates level.

You sound as stupid as my daughter when I told her every station on my machine uses computers, and she said, all I do is push buttons.
You are just plain stupid.

Your family must love you, I'm sure they are super interested in your binary recursion.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:42 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:39 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:38 pm
Ok, then you also don't know that being able to beta test a software doesn't require that you know how the hardware can be manufactured on the logic gates level.

You sound as stupid as my daughter when I told her every station on my machine uses computers, and she said, all I do is push buttons.
You are just plain stupid.

Your family must love you, I'm sure they are super interested in your binary recursion.

Mine? Plato taught it. He called it Dialectic. Your computer demonstrates its power, so as I said, call your own computer names, tell it that it cannot do what it does, because your gibberish takes prescience over observable fact.
Face it, you are an arrogant sociopath that does not know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:42 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:39 pm
You sound as stupid as my daughter when I told her every station on my machine uses computers, and she said, all I do is push buttons.
You are just plain stupid.

Your family must love you, I'm sure they are super interested in your binary recursion.

Mine? Plato taught it. He called it Dialectic. Your computer demonstrates its power, so as I said, call your own computer names, tell it that it cannot do what it does, because your gibberish takes prescience over observable fact.

No, my computer demonstrates the fact that it's most efficient to build classical computers for binary. Not that binary information processing is intrinsic. Another thing you didn't know.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:47 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:42 pm
Your family must love you, I'm sure they are super interested in your binary recursion.

Mine? Plato taught it. He called it Dialectic. Your computer demonstrates its power, so as I said, call your own computer names, tell it that it cannot do what it does, because your gibberish takes prescience over observable fact.

No, my computer demonstrates the fact that it's most efficient to build classical computers for binary. Not that binary information processing is intrinsic. Another thing you didn't know.

Okay, explain to every one how not to make 3 from three binary 1's. That you have a mystical method of doing it.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:48 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:47 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:45 pm
Mine? Plato taught it. He called it Dialectic. Your computer demonstrates its power, so as I said, call your own computer names, tell it that it cannot do what it does, because your gibberish takes prescience over observable fact.

No, my computer demonstrates the fact that it's most efficient to build classical computers for binary. Not that binary information processing is intrinsic. Another thing you didn't know.

Okay, explain to every one how not to make 3 from three binary 1's. That you have a mystical method of doing it.

Don't know what you mean. Three binary 1s are parts of a binary computer.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:50 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:48 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:47 pm
No, my computer demonstrates the fact that it's most efficient to build classical computers for binary. Not that binary information processing is intrinsic. Another thing you didn't know.

Okay, explain to every one how not to make 3 from three binary 1's. That you have a mystical method of doing it.

Don't know what you mean. Three binary 1s are parts of a binary computer.

Well how do you get to three without them, do you have to have a simple sentence explained to you. How do you get to three, as three distinct binaries without three distinct 1's.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:50 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 6:48 pm
Okay, explain to every one how not to make 3 from three binary 1's. That you have a mystical method of doing it.

Don't know what you mean. Three binary 1s are parts of a binary computer.

Well how do you get to three without them, do you have to have a simple sentence explained to you. How do you get to three, as three distinct binaries without three distinct 1's.

If all you have is stop, go, stop, what is the third item you claim to be able to add to it, Aristotle's impossible third man? No one has ever been able to do it, as both Plato and Aristotle claim.
Make history for everyone, as you say it can be done.

We are all waiting.